<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2019 (8) TMI 917 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384728</link>
    <description>The court found the writ petition maintainable as the petitioner&#039;s employer, a joint venture with significant government control, fell within the definition of &quot;State&quot; under the Constitution. The charge-sheet issued by the MD &amp;amp; CEO was deemed valid, and the constitution of the Inquiry Committee was upheld despite allegations of bias. The court directed the petitioner to respond to the Committee&#039;s findings and ordered an investigation into corruption allegations against respondent no.6. Applications related to the petition were disposed of, granting the petitioner three weeks to respond to the findings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Aug 2019 20:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=584386" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 917 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384728</link>
      <description>The court found the writ petition maintainable as the petitioner&#039;s employer, a joint venture with significant government control, fell within the definition of &quot;State&quot; under the Constitution. The charge-sheet issued by the MD &amp;amp; CEO was deemed valid, and the constitution of the Inquiry Committee was upheld despite allegations of bias. The court directed the petitioner to respond to the Committee&#039;s findings and ordered an investigation into corruption allegations against respondent no.6. Applications related to the petition were disposed of, granting the petitioner three weeks to respond to the findings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384728</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>